Now we know why IT support hate Macs

Life is a series of funny thangs.

and then you die ... ;o)

IBM is basically a consulting company at this point. And will say anything to stir up business. Today they are pushing Macs, Tomorrow Linux, next week Windows, Two months from now whatever, just to keep enterprises upgrading and buying IBM services, which, BTW are not cheap.

Tomorrow Linux?

IBM has been pushing Linux and open source for decades now. They are not stupid.

“Make it complicated, please,” may once have been the mantra for enterprise developers attempting to create needlessly complex business processing systems for use by employees.

Sounds like the definition of SAP

“However, we Windows users know way more about virus recovery, system rebuilds, constant vulnerability management, near-undetectable data exfiltration and the thrills of data breach incident response!”

You Windows users are altruistic too! You do all the above for free, donating your time as unpaid tech support for MSFT. It’s inspiring.

Lol

At many places, that would not be allowed. I know that stockbrokers are not even supposed to possess a cell phone at their workplace, because they might have conversations with clients that are not recorded.

“Mac users need less IT support”

While that may be true, it's the integration with other software/platforms in the enterprise that is giving some acid reflux.

Good for them. IBM sold off a majority of their hardware manufacturing business, they just sold off their x86 server business to Lenovo this year, they sold off their laptop and desktop business to Lenovo about a decade ago, sold off their storage business to Hitachi about 6 or 7 years ago. I know they still have their P-Series and I-Series server, I do not know if they even still sell the Z-Series mainframes. IBM is a consulting company, that is their business today.

Also why should I care what their opinion of Macs are? Seriously, if the Huffington post endorsed Ted Cruz, it would not affect me on supporting him more or less. I don’t need IBM or the Huffington Post to validate what I know. That is what liberals do

For example, my office is retiring several Apple Intel Core2Duo iMacs from 2008 and MacBook Airs, and a similar vintage Mac Mini that turned out to be no longer suitable for our purposes.
They are perfectly good Macs for home use, but will no longer run our vertical solution software reliably with the latest OS X (they will run that OS), so we bought some referred replacements. The replacement iMacs with 8GB of RAM and Intel i5s cost us $1059 and we will sell these seven year old iMacs they are replacing for approximately $400 each. . . making the cost of our replacements only $659. If we get the same use out of these new iMacs as we got out of the previous, they will cost us less than $100 a year. That's a bargain, as far as I am concerned. In the meantime, I will not have to buy any business subscription to any anti-virus or anti-malware at all. More savings.
The MacBook Air's, also refurbed cost us $749 and we will sell the two four year old ones also for about $400, which means the new ones will cost us a total of $349. . . giving us a four year potential cost of under $90 per year. Great bargains as far as we are concerned.

Business, lets say Walmart, are not in the business of selling used computers, do you know what they do with their old computers? In most cases they get a recycling company to take them off their hands, they give it away. Walmart isn't going to hire an IT staff to purchase brand new hard drives, open up each iMac, which is a pain in the butt if you ever had to do that, and replace 25,000 hard drives so they can recover a few pennies. 25,000 used iMacs hitting eBay would cause the price to fall as well. Apple hardware is not immune to the market forces of "supply and demand". Just because you did it with a dozen machines, does not mean this will scale to the Enterprise level

Yes mac needs less support because the real work is done on the desktop pc so there mac can sit there and look pretty (what it does best)

for those that do not think Mac’s get attack by malware.. to they also think that Hillary server was not attacked ?

You said:
That Security by Obscurity canard has been shot down so many times it is ridiculous. There have been Windows worms and viruses written to exploit computer populations with fewer than 20,000 vulnerable machines and they were ALL infected within 30 minutes of the virus/worm being released into the wild. In fact, in the past, one was written to exploit a vulnerable population of fewer than 125. If your Security by Obscurity claim were true, no one would have written those exploits.
_____________________________
I say:
This is cherry picking on your part. The first MAC I used in 1990 crashed constantly with a little bomb icon displayed saying “System Crashed. OK?” Now, you had no other choice but to click “OK” like it was just fine with me if I just lost my work. New to MACs, I didn’t realize it had a MACRO virus in it’s word processing software so I lost weeks of work and infected a branch office in New Jersey when I visited (and to think, they hated us because our group was from California. Think how i felt calling them and telling them their MACS now had the virus I brought on a disk.) You cite the examples of viruses written for less than 20,000 machines and then less for 125 machines. To little information to bolster your point. New operating system alreay infected? Then there’d be less than 20,000 live but the virus was written anticipating adoption (some buggy version of Windows is coming! Release the hounds!) by more computers. Small numbers of computers may reduce virus production (i.e., MACS) but if those few computers have high value information (Satellite) or are on the leading edge of the next technology, then yes - viruses are written in advance of wide exposure. Talking in terms of market - I haven’t heard that Ransomware was written for MACS but I could be wrong....
______________________
You said:There are now over 100 million Macs in the wild, with 99% of them running completely bare naked of any anti-virus protection and yet there are STILL zero viable viruses/worms in the wild after 17 years of OS X actually being in the wild itself. Yet, no one has succeeded in writing a successful computer virus/worm for the OS X system.
__________________
I say there may be 100 million Macs in the wild (how many are in 3rd world countries?)- how many of them are thought to house key information worth stealing? Business still = PC’s (Unless art or music). Who wants to steal money from “starving artists and musicians”? How about investment bankers (PC’s)? Now you’re talking.

You say: There is a legitimate reason why Apple Macs are far more secure than Windows. In addition, there are only 58 known Trojans in eight families for the Mac, and every one of them is known to the OS which will warn the user if he or she tries to download, install, or run any of them and require and administrator’s name and password to continue with any of those steps. It takes INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH STUPID to continue and be infected on a Mac with any one of them.

here are more than enough Macs in the wild to attract hackers and miscreants to hack into them, but they still have not. These data on user IT call center use is from LAST WEEK. . . and they are from a very reliable source, IBM, who is reporting on REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, not from some fly-by-night Mac fanboy.
____________________________
I Say: If MACS gain enough market share and a reputation for housing high value information, the viruses will come.
_________________________________________
You say: The fact is, ransom note, that Macs can run far MORE software than any Windows computer can . . . because they are true UNIX™ computers capable of true multi-user multi-virtual machine environments. I have access to the entire libraries of everyone of those operating systems. I also have Virtual Machine instances available to me of THEOS, MS-DOS, Amiga-OS, the original Apple MacOS 9.2, and emulations of the C=64 and C=128, and Atari lines, which I can load in, should I have need of them. . . and access to all of their libraries of software.
________________________________
I say: “Can run” ? But they don’t. The software library is what I reference everytime I buy a PC and because Windows can’t limit software development to the extent that MAC can, more programmers write more software for more purposes, more competition etc. then MAC can feasible field. MAC has to license every piece of software it develops and when I go to look for a utility for MAC, if APple didn’t bless it, it doesn’t exist. With PC’s, I have access to more software actually written and sold or offered free. Apple’s theoretical advantage (i.e., your claim that Unix seals the deal) doesn’t mean anything to me if I can’t buy it or I have too few choices.
I’m glad you like Macs - I don’t think that software produced anywhere by anyone is bullet proof. You’ve heard that there are hacks into aircraft, pacemakers, self driving vehicles but you’re certain that Macs are invulnerable because...well because, they are Macs.
_________________________________

I assumed I can’t find comparable sofware in Mac land because it was still locked. So there must be some other reason they don’t have the software library that PC’s have. Possibly they came late to the game of open development. I don’t know - I won’t buy a Mac if I can’t run the software I need to run. I’ve used them - they are fun.

This is cherry picking on your part. The first MAC I used in 1990 crashed constantly with a little bomb icon displayed saying “System Crashed. OK?” Now, you had no other choice but to click “OK” like it was just fine with me if I just lost my work.

And that has exactly WHAT to do with Apple OS X??? Apple MacOS circa 1990 is not anything related to Apple OS X. . . they don't run on the same processors, they have not even one smidgeon of the same architecture, or even the same history or theory behind how they operate. Your example is like saying I once fell off of a bicycle so cars are dangerous because they both have wheels. It Literally is that distant an analogy, ransomnote. You demonstrate your abysmal ignorance of what you are posting with that example.

Yes, I provided an example of a virus written for vulnerable fewer than 20K Windows machines and I could provide lots more. It is not just cherry picking, just one that is well known. The Witty Worm made quite a splash because it infected every single vulnerable machine within a few minutes of being released into the wild no matter where they were located in the world! ALL of them. It demonstrates that obscurity does not exist as a concept on the Internet. . . and that every computer is right next door to every other computer as far as access is concerned. What DOES matter is can it be broken into.

The Witty Worm was written to exploit an already PATCHED vulnerability. . . as are many viruses and worms. The Witty's vulnerability had been patched for almost a year when it was released into the wild. . . yet it found every single un-patched computer in the wild. That point is that almost every Mac is unprotected and bare naked, and exposed. . . but untouched in the wild, all 100,000,000 of them because it IS so hard to exploit them, not because they are obscure, but because there are no vectors to find a way into them.

I provided all the information you needed to make that conclusion. . . but you chose to ignore the facts. At one time new a Windows system acould be infected within TWO minutes if exposed to the Internet without protection—you had to install anti-virus before putting one online . . . That has NEVER been the case for a new OS X system. . .

I say: “Can run” ? But they don’t. The software library is what I reference everytime I buy a PC and because Windows can’t limit software development to the extent that MAC can, more programmers write more software for more purposes, more competition etc. then MAC can feasible field. MAC has to license every piece of software it develops and when I go to look for a utility for MAC, if APple didn’t bless it, it doesn’t exist.

It is amazing how much you claim know is true about Apple Macs that simple isn't true at all. Almost all of what you wrote above falls into that category. . . and that again demonstrates how ignorant you truly are.

What is even more amazing is your attempt to "educate" those of us who are PROFESSIONALS in the field who use both Windows and Macs in business environments who DO know what we are talking about and see you making a fool out of your self, time and time again, with every post you write. It is hilarious. This one was a pip, starting out with a 25 year old anecdote really takes the cake.

Could be fun reading your post but you lecture like an angry school teacher. I guess I am not quite that emotional about platforms. I’ll read your post later - looks like there might be something interesting in there somewhere.
I worked in publishing - our artists and DTP’s used Macs and the rest of the building used PC’s. They put on Mac’s for awhile but eventually moved us (non artists) back to PC’s because as a business -there was no advantage but there were limitations. That was true up until I left in 2009.
Hey, I hope you have a relaxing day.

Mindfulness